So you're saying that if someone is a Republican that they are against looking after the poor, handicapped and elderly? I am one of those Republicans - but I don't necessarily think it is the federal government's job to look after the less fortunate. For starters, what you're saying is insulting and an ad hominem - we may have different methods as to how to help the less fortunate, but I believe we want to help them. Second, why does it make sense to tax someone in Florida, send that money to Washington DC, pay a bureaucrat to decide who should get that money, send it to another bureaucrat, and so on... then the money filters (or trickles down to the poor finally. Why not let the state of Florida, or the city government in addition to private charities help the poor? If you are for the federal government doing everything, then you're really for "trickle down charity." Lastly, the methods you propose seem to go against the Catholic principle of subsidiarity - which holds that problems should be dealt with at the least centralized authority - it doesn't get more centralized than the federal govt. Moreover, the Buffett tax wouldn't even effect the deficit or debt much. I would be interested in hearing your answer to these points, but only if you acknowlege that both Democrats and Republicans can want to help the poor, but disagree on the methods. Let's not engage in ad hominems and insults, okay?

Ishii

I'm saying, if someone is a Republican. They need to be taken by the hand, and led away from that place.

ATB

__________________
I'm no where near a Saint or a Pope. But I say you cannot love the poor with the same heart you love wealth, and material things.

He said: "Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work."

Sounds like social security, not many of those recipients work, although many could.

I asked you about this before: are you in the US or in a different country? Because here in the US, people pay into Social Security. And the deal that the government made was, you pay into SS now, we pay current retirees, then when you retire, we will pay you.

Yeah, a gigantic Ponzi scheme which was further messed up by the Pill and ZPG, but SS is not like welfare, where a person can get on welfare without ever having paid into the system.

And I would like to point out 2 things: there are a lot of people well over 65 working at WalMart, nothing like seeing someone who can barely walk handing out stickers at the doors; and it is very hard to get hired if you are over 50-55. A lot of places won't hire someone who is old enough to get SS, because, duh!, they get SS. They hire younger people who "really need" the job.

And why are you so upset about SS anyway? I mean, I can see a lot of reasons for being upset, but you seem personally ticked off about individuals receiving the benefits for which they paid (and usually could have gotten more from if they had invested it themselves, not to mention the fact that if they had not been forced to pay it to the government, they could have left it to their heirs.)

__________________

"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P

I asked you about this before: are you in the US or in a different country? Because here in the US, people pay into Social Security. And the deal that the government made was, you pay into SS now, we pay current retirees, then when you retire, we will pay you.

Actually, Social Security is no different than any other welfare program, in all welfare programs working people pay taxes and those who don't work receive benefits. It is just that people feel entitled to welfare when it is called Social Security. Also, have you not noticed, the country is broke.

Quote:

Yeah, a gigantic Ponzi scheme which was further messed up by the Pill and ZPG, but SS is not like welfare, where a person can get on welfare without ever having paid into the system.

And I would like to point out 2 things: there are a lot of people well over 65 working at WalMart, nothing like seeing someone who can barely walk handing out stickers at the doors; and it is very hard to get hired if you are over 50-55. A lot of places won't hire someone who is old enough to get SS, because, duh!, they get SS. They hire younger people who "really need" the job.

There are a lot of SS recipients on golf courses, if you are strong enough to play golf, you are strong enough to work.

Quote:

And why are you so upset about SS anyway? I mean, I can see a lot of reasons for being upset, but you seem personally ticked off about individuals receiving the benefits for which they paid (and usually could have gotten more from if they had invested it themselves, not to mention the fact that if they had not been forced to pay it to the government, they could have left it to their heirs.)

There are several problems with Social Security:

1. We have a huge deficit, we can't afford Social Security any more. For a senior to collect $ while passing off the bills to future generations is pretty selfish.

2. Any government program that encourages takes from those who work and gives to those who don't work is a bad program. There is no legitimate role of government to spread the wealth around like this.

He said: "Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work."

Sounds like social security, not many of those recipients work, although many could.

Complete misrepresentation. I suppose Granny COULD work and lots of elderly do work but Social Security was instituted as a (forced) insurance program. The "I" in FICA is for INSURANCE. Unfortunately it has simply turned into another slush fund for the federal government to raid for other uses but there is nothing about the Social Security program that indicates the purpose or effect is spreading money around to people who won't work.

Actually, you are the one with the misrepresentation. In the 1880s about 75% of men over 65 were in the labor force, today that number is under 20%. Are you saying that old people have become less healthy and less able to work in the last century?

Actually, you are the one with the misrepresentation. In the 1880s about 75% of men over 65 were in the labor force, today that number is under 20%. Are you saying that old people have become less healthy and less able to work in the last century?

Not at all and that doesn't address my confusion with your post as stated SS is a way of transferring from the workers to the non-workers. I think Ender pointed out that there is a huge difference between SS which people pay into (although whether they get out more or less depends on multiple factors) and thus is completely different than a simple transfer such as welfare where we taxpayers pay those who do not work although it's entirely possible that those receiving have never paid anything into the system. Ditto with unemployment which a lot of people THINK they pay into but it is simply another cost of doing business and of having employees.

So claiming SS is some kind of 'welfare' is not true although there are those who get more than they give and others who never collect a dime even after paying in for decades.

As to your statement, how many men in the 1880s were "in the workforce" in the current sense of the word? America had a lot of agricultural enterprises and having grown up on a farm, in farm country I am aware that the very elderly continue to work on the farm. My 97 year old great grandmother continued to work in the garden...guess she was in the "labor force?" Not sure what any of this has to do with the issue at hand. Help me out here and connect the dots. Thanks!
Lisa

Not at all and that doesn't address my confusion with your post as stated SS is a way of transferring from the workers to the non-workers. I think Ender pointed out that there is a huge difference between SS which people pay into (although whether they get out more or less depends on multiple factors) and thus is completely different than a simple transfer such as welfare where we taxpayers pay those who do not work although it's entirely possible that those receiving have never paid anything into the system. Ditto with unemployment which a lot of people THINK they pay into but it is simply another cost of doing business and of having employees.

So claiming SS is some kind of 'welfare' is not true although there are those who get more than they give and others who never collect a dime even after paying in for decades.

As to your statement, how many men in the 1880s were "in the workforce" in the current sense of the word? America had a lot of agricultural enterprises and having grown up on a farm, in farm country I am aware that the very elderly continue to work on the farm. My 97 year old great grandmother continued to work in the garden...guess she was in the "labor force?" Not sure what any of this has to do with the issue at hand. Help me out here and connect the dots. Thanks!
Lisa

I'll let him speak for himself, but the following might be worth considering;
1. Social Security has nearly always been "pay as you go". In other words, what people were paying in was never a whole lot more than was going out, except during a fairly brief period when the baby boomers were in their prime earning years. Even then, there was really not some large surplus.
2. FDR sold SS as a "trust fund" concept, but even he knew it wasn't. He said that so it would pass congress. But it was never an actuarially sound system.
3. Many people receiving SS need it. But not all do. I know a guy who is worth about $40 million. I don't know if he put in for SS, but he and his wife are entitled to it. Should struggling working people pay for it? I know others who are worth millions; wildly guessing, perhaps as many as 200 of them. Should somebody working in a factory for $12-15/hour pay those peoples' SS.
4. Almost nobody newly receiving SS today ever thought they would actually receive it. Baby boomers, by and large, knew it was an unsound system all along. Sure, the wealthier among them would like that extra money, but the truth is that not many have really believed in it being a 'trust fund" for decades.
5. I don't think anybody is proposing that all elderly should be cut off SS. Some really do need it, particularly those who do not have an education or profession that would allow them to continue working, and most particularly those whose jobs have taken a heavy toll on them physically. But a lot of them can work and a lot of them do, and not just as Walmart greeters, either. I don't know a whole lot of doctors who have worked past 65, but I know some. I have never known of a local lawyer who quit at 65. They just keep going until they die or lose their minds. I know a banker who is in his mid-seventies who still works every single day. He's the president of the bank, which helps, of course. I know realtors who are over 65 and who do quite well.

The proper objectives are not to deprive anybody. The big question is whether the whole system will melt down in the face of an aging population. I don't think anybody thinks it's sustainable. So, what do we do to fix it? Well, one way to do it is to not give it to people who absolutely don't need it. You know, if a person retires at 62, he is going to receive a reduced SS benefit, and he is not allowed to earn more than $30,000/year from working. If he does, his benefit is offset by (I think) $1.00 for every $2.00 he earns over that limit.

If it's just to do that when a person is 62, why not at 65 or 66 or 67?

I do know this. One of the current proposals is to change the retirement age to 70. Is that more fair? I don't think it is, precisely because some people are "all in" at 65. Much better to leave the retirement age lower but reduce the benefit to the vanishing point for those who have sufficient other income on which to live.

I'll let him speak for himself, but the following might be worth considering;
1. Social Security has nearly always been "pay as you go". In other words, what people were paying in was never a whole lot more than was going out, except during a fairly brief period when the baby boomers were in their prime earning years. Even then, there was really not some large surplus.
2. FDR sold SS as a "trust fund" concept, but even he knew it wasn't. He said that so it would pass congress. But it was never an actuarially sound system.
3. Many people receiving SS need it. But not all do. I know a guy who is worth about $40 million. I don't know if he put in for SS, but he and his wife are entitled to it. Should struggling working people pay for it? I know others who are worth millions; wildly guessing, perhaps as many as 200 of them. Should somebody working in a factory for $12-15/hour pay those peoples' SS.
4. Almost nobody newly receiving SS today ever thought they would actually receive it. Baby boomers, by and large, knew it was an unsound system all along. Sure, the wealthier among them would like that extra money, but the truth is that not many have really believed in it being a 'trust fund" for decades.
5. I don't think anybody is proposing that all elderly should be cut off SS. Some really do need it, particularly those who do not have an education or profession that would allow them to continue working, and most particularly those whose jobs have taken a heavy toll on them physically. But a lot of them can work and a lot of them do, and not just as Walmart greeters, either. I don't know a whole lot of doctors who have worked past 65, but I know some. I have never known of a local lawyer who quit at 65. They just keep going until they die or lose their minds. I know a banker who is in his mid-seventies who still works every single day. He's the president of the bank, which helps, of course. I know realtors who are over 65 and who do quite well.

The proper objectives are not to deprive anybody. The big question is whether the whole system will melt down in the face of an aging population. I don't think anybody thinks it's sustainable. So, what do we do to fix it? Well, one way to do it is to not give it to people who absolutely don't need it. You know, if a person retires at 62, he is going to receive a reduced SS benefit, and he is not allowed to earn more than $30,000/year from working. If he does, his benefit is offset by (I think) $1.00 for every $2.00 he earns over that limit.

If it's just to do that when a person is 62, why not at 65 or 66 or 67?

I do know this. One of the current proposals is to change the retirement age to 70. Is that more fair? I don't think it is, precisely because some people are "all in" at 65. Much better to leave the retirement age lower but reduce the benefit to the vanishing point for those who have sufficient other income on which to live.

Ridgerunner you probably haven't read my previous posts in which I am in full 100% screaming agreement with you. I think SS and Medicare should be means tested although perhaps with respect to SS some return of one's investment might be appropriate, particularly if we are trying to exact cooperation from those who paid in for decades thinking they WOULD get something out of it...whether they "need" it or not.

I work for very successful high income individuals and they certainly have substantial incomes after retirement and don't need the additional SS to put food on the table. I don't think they would object to either a means testing or extended retirement age (one is still working at age 85 and collecting SS!)

My point is with respect to Stinkcat's premise that SS is a "welfare" type system where money is transferred from working people to non-working people. I think it's a different sort of animal. Had the feds not raided SS for other expenses, the "trust fund" might have lasted longer. DId you hear today's news? It's going bankrupt sooner than we thought.
Clearly something needs to be done, it's just a matter of the method!

Actually, Social Security is no different than any other welfare program, in all welfare programs working people pay taxes and those who don't work receive benefits. It is just that people feel entitled to welfare when it is called Social Security. Also, have you not noticed, the country is broke.

SS is different in that people were promised that if they paid in, they would get the pay-out. But obviously we have a different opinion here; I happen to believe that if people are told that if they do X, they will receive Y, that they should receive Y.

Quote:

There are a lot of SS recipients on golf courses, if you are strong enough to play golf, you are strong enough to work.

If retired folks are playing golf, they have other money to live on besides SS, because SS payments are not sufficient to cover golfing, which is a fairly expensive activity.

Quote:

There are several problems with Social Security:

1. We have a huge deficit, we can't afford Social Security any more. For a senior to collect $ while passing off the bills to future generations is pretty selfish.

I do not have a problem with means-testing at this point, esp if it is gradually implemented and effected, since we are in such a bad economic situation.

Quote:

2. Any government program that encourages takes from those who work and gives to those who don't work is a bad program. There is no legitimate role of government to spread the wealth around like this.

This is not a spread-the-wealth program; it is supposed to be a retirement program. Unfortunately, the government mis-used the funds.

__________________

"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."
-Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P

Actually, you are the one with the misrepresentation. In the 1880s about 75% of men over 65 were in the labor force, today that number is under 20%. Are you saying that old people have become less healthy and less able to work in the last century?

You can't be serious.

__________________
I'm no where near a Saint or a Pope. But I say you cannot love the poor with the same heart you love wealth, and material things.

I think SS and Medicare should be means tested although perhaps with respect to SS some return of one's investment might be appropriate, particularly if we are trying to exact cooperation from those who paid in for decades thinking they WOULD get something out of it...whether they "need" it or not.

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but taxes are not an "investment", That comes from a liberal mindset, there are no private accounts with SS, from the beginning it was a system where we took money from those who work and gave to those who didn't work.

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but taxes are not an "investment", That comes from a liberal mindset, there are no private accounts with SS, from the beginning it was a system where we took money from those who work and gave to those who didn't work.

And according to reports out today, SS and SS Disability will go broke in 2016. That is ust four years from now, folks.

Ridgerunner you probably haven't read my previous posts in which I am in full 100% screaming agreement with you. I think SS and Medicare should be means tested although perhaps with respect to SS some return of one's investment might be appropriate, particularly if we are trying to exact cooperation from those who paid in for decades thinking they WOULD get something out of it...whether they "need" it or not.

I work for very successful high income individuals and they certainly have substantial incomes after retirement and don't need the additional SS to put food on the table. I don't think they would object to either a means testing or extended retirement age (one is still working at age 85 and collecting SS!)

My point is with respect to Stinkcat's premise that SS is a "welfare" type system where money is transferred from working people to non-working people. I think it's a different sort of animal. Had the feds not raided SS for other expenses, the "trust fund" might have lasted longer. DId you hear today's news? It's going bankrupt sooner than we thought.
Clearly something needs to be done, it's just a matter of the method!

Lisa

Oh. My points of disagreement (if we disagree at all) are marginal. I still do, however, think that most baby boomers really never expected to be able to receive SS at all. I have heard them (and certainly younger people) say that for decades.